We use cookies to give you the best experience possible. By continuing we’ll assume you’re on board with our cookie policy

Check Writers' Offers

What's Your Topic?

Hire a Professional Writer Now

The input space is limited by 250 symbols

What's Your Deadline?

Choose 3 Hours or More.
2/4 steps

How Many Pages?

3/4 steps

Sign Up and Get Writers' Offers

"You must agree to out terms of services and privacy policy"
Get Offer

Social Influence - Compliance and Obedience

Paper type: Essay
Pages: 11 (2513 words)
Categories: Influence,Obedience
Downloads: 48
Views: 10

Emotion and Arousal

William James – Your body is telling you “you are afraid”. For every situation there is a response

Canon-Bard – two-factor theory of emotion. Your physical response is the dame as when you are in love. We can miss attribution. Misattribution of arousal.

Zillman (1979) – unrelated event – physical arousal – intensifies your response in another situation. Misattribution. Arousal from another source. Interpretation of the arousal in state in which is aggression appropriate.

What is truth?

Muzafar Sherif (1936) reality:

Strictly empiricist

Religious faith

Truth as we are able to understand it.

Auto kinetic Experiment

2 phases:

Individual experiment: random answers or some sort of norm. (10o judgements, 2 session)

Result: as an individual you have your own standard. And they develop a mode and when there are in a group, they come to an agreement to what is the right answer.

Group experiment: even more random answers or a group norm.

Result: as a group they already started with an agreement. They already started with a norm and kept it.

At the end when they ask

This experiment had no right or wrong answers. Counterbalanced order.

Individuals established a mode and there was an individual median.

Meaning auto kinetic: ‘selfmovement’

Ze deden het ‘stip’ experiment waarbij men naar een stip keek en vroeg of het bewoog of niet.

Informational conformity= conformeert zowel private als public.

Normative conformity= conformeert op dat moment, andere momenten heb je jouw eigen denkwijze. This is public and not private.

Theoretical significance

Norms are social products

Groups seem to have a binding power

No leader!


explanations for socially turbulent times (e.g. political, disaster)

cross-cultural, care relations.

Situational influence

Situational = powerful

Dependency on others for social approval (normative).

‘I want to be accepted’

Dependency on others for information about reality (informational)

‘I want to know what’s right’

Conformity and obedience


Verandering in gedrag door explicite of impliciete sociala druk. Dat kan op 2 manieren=

Informational influence= omdat ze juist willen antwoorden. (public + private) 2 aspecten hiervan zijn=

Social referencing: naar andere kijken om te weten hoe te gedragen.

Je gelooft dat ze de waarheid spreken,

Normative influence: conformeren om aardig gevonden te worden. (public)

Compliance (public conformity): je verandert alleen gedrag, maar mening blijft hetzelfde.

Exp. Ash.: groep van 6 personen moest je kiezen welke lijn het langst was. 37% conformity.

Normative influence

Conversion (private conformity): je verandert gedrag + mening.

Exp. Sherif. Autokinetic = groep van 3 personen meningen kwamen dichter bij elkaar.

Informational influence.

KELLMAN Private Public Compliance x Normative

Identification Not forever

Internalisation Informational

Private Public Compliance x Conversion Bekeerling (verandert helemaal mee)

Indepence x x Anti-conformity x Mee eens, maar conformeert niet mee.

Congrence At al langer geen vlees, dus wordt maar vegan. (geen groot verschil.

Linear vs. non-linear

In general: non-linear effect is most robust

Some refinements:

Subjective (music taste)/fitting in linear effect

Objective (Asch Line) > non-linear (3-5 person majority)

(Hogg, Vaughan p. 256)


Following a direct order. Asking to do something, you do it.

Factors that make people obey.

Gradual escalation.

Immediacy – Social Impact Theory – strength, immediacy and number.

Ethical concerns.

Process of obedience:

Activation of norms obedience.

Exclusion other norms that guide individual behavior

Gradual commitment

Justification of the action gaat tegen je eigen norm

Milgram experiment (1963)

Experiment was to punish the learners by the teacher if his answers were wrong. Learner was given the right to say wrong answers, but the teacher didn’t know. ‘how far will people go if the authority says you can punish until when you can’.

Result: People will go far if they are under control of people with power.


“The fundamental concept in social science is Power, in the same sense in which energy is the fundamental concept in physics.” (Bertrand Russel 1938)

Social Power: The capacity to influence others, even when these others try to resist influence (forsyth, p. 242)

Raven’s (1965) Six Power Bases

Coercive Power- Power to punish or threaten

Reward Power – Power to reward (loonsverhoging)

Legitimate power – Authorized power by law (judge, president)

Referent power- Charisma: Follow me (religious people, zafzafi, to die for their leader)

Informational power – I know something you don’t know (influencers)

Expert power – Trust me, I’m a professional. (lab coat, professor, doctor)

Can a person have both reward as coersive power?

Minority Influence: minderheid wilt change, conformeert niet met meerderheid. Denk zwarte piet discussie.

Serge Moscovici – conversion effect = how can you change someone’s norm?

Systematic processing of arguments

Validation process

Private conformity (or conversion)



Idiosyncrasy credits

Facts vs. opinions

Motives (progressive, ‘non-conformist’)

Belangrijke begrippen

Social identity theory:

Identify w/ group will influence beliefs & self-esteem.

5 stappen voor geven van hulp (Latane & Darley)

Problemen opmerken. noticing

Wat fout kan gaan: distraction

Stimulus overload: gewend zijn om arme mensen op straat te zien, dus je filtert ze sneller weg.

Interpreteren. Interpreting

Wat fout kan gaan: dubbelzinnigheid (ambigious/ambugiteit)

Plurastic ignorance: andere vooruitzichten in hun hoofd, maar iedereen handelt hetzelfde. Iedereen heeft misperceptie van de ander, want ze denken dat hunzelf een andere kijk heeft op de situatie.

Verantwoordelijkheid nemen

Diffusion of responsibility: meerdere mensen aanwezig, waardoor verantwoordelijkheid verdeeld wordt. (not possible als individu -denkt- alleen is)

Lack of competence

Bepalen hoe je gaat helpen.

Kan direct als: ik ben een arts

Als indirect: ik bel een arts reportorial

Hulp bieden

Als cost meer is dan reward, dan helpen ze niet.

Audience inhibition angst om voorschut te staan.

? Als 1 van de bovengenoemde stappen mist, dan onstaat er een bystanders effect.

Bystanders effect:

Hoe groter de groep, hoe kleiner de kans op hulp.

Bystanders calculus model (Piliavin 81)

Calculator van bystanders’ effect.

Arousal (zoals empathie)

Label as arousal (connecting arousal to emotion)

Evaluation of cost & reward.

Bystander intervention

Een individu breekt uit de rol van de bystanders effect en helpt de persoon in nood.

Social cohesion:

Characteristics that keep a group together

Zimbardo model:

Arousal + anonymity + reduces responsibility = deindividuation


Voorbeeld: Guards of Stanford Prison Exp.


Verliezen van eigen identiteit in groep en verschuiven vam eigen grenzen.

Factoren deindivudualisatie:


High level of arousalreduces self-awareness

Focus on exernal events

Close group unity

Drive theory (Zajonc)

Presence others arousal increases facilitates dominant respons


Correct or increased performance or incorrect or decreased performance

Social Facilization (Zajonc)

Aanwezigheid van andere versterkt dominante respons.

Forsyth: to facilitate to enhance. (correct or increased respons of drive theory)

Social inhibitionIncorrect respons or decreased performance of drive theory.

Task taxonomy

Group task can be classified according to whether a division of labour is possible:

whether there is a predetermined standard to be met; and how an individual input can contribute.

Is the task divisible or unitary?

A divisible task is one that benefits from a division of labour, where different people perform different subtasks.

A unitary task cannot sensibly be broken into subtasks. Building a house is a divisible task and pulling a rope a unitary task.

Is it a maximising or an optimising task?

A maximising task is an open-ended task that stresses quantity: the objective is to do as much as possible.

An optimising task is one that has a predetermined standard: the objective is to meet the standard, neither to exceed nor fall short of it. Pulling on a rope would be a maximising task but maintaining a specified fixed force on the rope would be an optimising task.

How are individual inputs related to the group’s product?

An additive task is one where the group’s product is the sum of all the individual inputs (e.g. a group of people planting trees).

A compensatory task is one where the group’s product is the average of the individuals’ inputs (e.g. a group of people estimating the number of bars in Amsterdam).

A disjunctive task is one where the group selects as its adopted product one individual’s input (e.g. a group of people proposing different things to do over the weekend will adopt one person’s suggestion).

A conjunctive task is one where the group’s product is determined by the rate or level of performance of the slowest or least able member (e.g. a group working on an assembly line).

A discretionary task is one where the relationship between individual inputs and the group’s product is not directly dictated by task features or social conventions; instead the group is free to decide on its preferred course of action (e.g. a group that decide to shovel snow together).

Distraction/conflict theory

Je zit in conflict. Ga je meer aandacht geven aan mensen of aan taak?

Fundamental attribution error

Cognitive huerstic (Kassin)

Difference between HSM & ELM

Central and peripheral route to persuasion

Elaboration likelihood model (Petty & Cacioppo)

Central: Think hard about what you see, feel, hear.

Peripheral: influenced by others.

Heuristic-systematic model (Chaiken)

Difference FCE & BFF

False consensus effect: behavior, attitude is the norm. what we feel, we think others think that too.

Belief in a favorable future: FCE predicts future.

Wat is self-serving bias?

Attributional distortions that protect or enhance self-esteem or the self-concept.

The exam went bad the exam was bad made (not your fault)

Protecting or enhancing self-esteem Ego-serving

Kelleys covariation theory

How to attribute someone’s behavior.

Low consensus: nobody likes movie, but he does.

High distinctiveness: he does not like most movies, but this one he does.

High consistency: student went twice and also liked the movie the first time.

(Stanford) Prison experiment


Zimbardo (1971) heeft een onderzoek gestart naar de psychologische consequenties van het leven in een gevangenis.

Gesponsord door: US Navy interested: reden van conflicten tussen militaire bewakers en gevangenen.

Het snappen van de onderliggende woede van mensen. Is het situation/environment of personality traits/disposition.


Deelnemers= 24 gezonde, mannelijke studenten.

Geen criminele achtergrond

Geen mentale beperkingen

Geen medische problemen

Locatie gemaakte gevangenis= kelder van de Stanford University

Rollen zijn door een flip of coin verdeeld. (Heel random)

9 gevangenen (24/7) en 9 bewakers(8u./7). Bewakers hadden een team van 3 om de 8 uur shift. De rest van de bewakers en gevangenen staan on stand-by voor als ze hen nodig hebben.

Zimbardo rol = supervisie (superintended)

David Jaffe rol (assistent van Zimbardo voor dit onderzoek) = directeur van prison

Instructies bewakers:

Geen fysiek geweld


Great impact of social roles/context.

Clear authority/subordinates’ relationship

Prison environment manipulates to promote anonymity depersonalization and dehumanization. aggressive behavior guards submissive behavior prisoners

BBC Prison Study

Social Identity theory:


Guards behavior

Weak identification as a group x

Undermining other guards (insecurity)

No clear leader

Weak or no punishment

Lost their authority

Prisoners behavior

Stringer identification as a group than the guards

Worked together

Very rebellious

Noticed the weakness in the guards

Broke down authority

Phase 2


Everything went well at first

No consequences for when rules were broken

Rebellious participants continued to misbehave

Some wanted strong social order (prisoner – guard system)

This led to extreme behavior which led to the experiment to be discontinued


Not the same as SPE

Behavior was not reliable on the social role (guard or prisoner)

The guards did not show extreme anti-social behavior

People do not automatically assume the roles that are given to them

Contextual factors play a large role.

Zimbargo reaction to BBC Prison Theory

Was against it.

wasn’t first prison experiment, 3 months before by Jeffrey and he was a guard of the spe. Based on the dorms experiment. Stanford university basement

guards knew what to achieve in experiment

guards were informed about participants

were not allowed to leave. Only reason: gek worden (psychische problemen)

Zimbargo said didn’t feel like a prison. The real effect of prison, felt more like school play

The documentary were just a few clips and were incomplete and biased

Conclusion were written before experiment was completed

Final assignment

Main goal: report

Why do people behave like this?

Part I – First Impressions

Impression formation

Facial features

Likeability (trust)

Power (dominance) Babyface less slightly to be promoted to leadership

Oosterhof & Todorov (2008)

Three applicants expr. = tattoo in neck, stigma on face and a normal applicant. Normal applicant was mostly chosen for interview.



Voice (high or low, fast or slowly)

Non-verbal behavior

Social categorization

Dividing people into categories on the basis of common attributes (e.g. gender, ethnicity) – automatically.

Basically, you put people in boxes; hijabis with hijbabis, black with black, white people with white.

Impression formation theories (Fiske, Lin, & Neuberg, 1999)

Limited personalized information Social categorization

More personalized information individualization

Outgroup homogeneity effect (lack of familiarity)

All outgroup members are alike

All ingroup members are diverse

Goal= social identity (Tajfel & Turner, 1986)

Attributional biases

Fundamental attribution error (Pettigrew, 1979)

Other’s negative behavior internal, dispositional factors (personality)

Other’s positive behavior external, situational factors (chance)

Correspondence bias


Explaining action of lawyer

Limits on the correspondence bias

Cultural limits

Correspondence bias less prevalent on eastern, interdependent cultures

Perhaps those cultures consider wider range of causes for a behavior, not just personal characteristics.

Self-fulfilling prophecy

Expr. Black treatment with the interviewer.

Word, Zanna & Cooper (1972)

Processing information (can we change first impression) by Daniel Kahneman

Persuasion and attitudes

Decision making


Elaboration likelihood/ heuristic systematic

Superficial (type 1/central)

Unwilling or unable to devote much time or effect to thinking

First impression unlikely to change (conservatism)

Systematic (type 2/central)

Thinking more deeply taking a wider range of information into account

Less biases, you are going more through information

Requires two factors



Part II – The Scientific Method (by Peter Verkoeijen)

Ways of knowing

Passer (2017) Research Methods: concepts and connections

Tenacity= knowing by force of habit

Authority= knowledge gained from others

Reason= relying on logic and rationality

Empiricism= knowledge based on experience

Science: knowledge based on systematic empiricism (todays lecture)

Empirical cycle

Empirical cycle: Rogers et.al, (2017)

2 different books predict 2 different political outcomes.

False consensus effect (FCE): because you like something people should like it too.

“Everyone should love Justin Bieber because you do? False! That’s false consensus effect.”

FCE relates to mative realism:

I perceive the world objectively

Rational others must see the world as I do

Those who disagree with me are uninformed, irrational or biased.


FCE increases for future predictions: Belief in Favorable Future (BFF)

Design study and collect data (study 2 in paper)

“When you have put a lot of ideas together to make an elaborate theory, you want to make sure, when explaining what it first, that those things it fits are not just the things that gave you the idea for the theory·”

Richards Feynman on Cargo Cult Science.


On replication

Replication is the cornerstone of empirical science

Concerns about replication in medicine, economics, genetics and psychology.

Replication of famous ‘professor priming’ study:

What happens? Psychology student randomly divided into groups. One group had to think of 1 professor. They were thinking of intelligent. Other group had to think about hooligans. They didn’t think about rationality. Afterwards, both groups had to answers trivia questions. People who think about professor scored better than group ‘hooligans’.

Social priming

Scientific attitude

Critical thinking

Openness to new ideas



Cite this essay

Social Influence – Compliance and Obedience. (2019, Dec 13). Retrieved from https://studymoose.com/social-influence-compliance-and-obedience-essay

How to Avoid Plagiarism
  • Use multiple resourses when assembling your essay
  • Use Plagiarism Checker to double check your essay
  • Get help from professional writers when not sure you can do it yourself
  • Do not copy and paste free to download essays
Get plagiarism free essay

Not Finding What You Need?

Search for essay samples now


Your Answer is very helpful for Us
Thank you a lot!